Do you feel that the majority opinion in your Supreme Court court case was correctly decided? Explain your answer refering to the constitution, using evidence from the case documents and examples from your personal experiences as a student.
Due Friday by Sunday midnight.
55 comments:
In the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the majority of the supreme court ruled in favor of the Principal of the Hazelwood school. I feel that this was a rightfully decided decision. In a school, students are blanketed by a number of rules that do not apply to a person outside of school. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case (held in 1969) the court ruled in favor of protecting the students' first amendment rights because it was a "silent" speech in which the learning environment was not disrupted.On the other hand, a school newspaper should be audited because of its ability to disrupt the environment. I don't believe that it's okay to say that school newspapers have the same rights as a public forum newspaper. There are many things in the New Haven Register that have been published that are not appropriate for students in a school. I believe that there is a certain respect that should be maintained in a school, and that should be controlled by the administration. The court ruled that the school newspaper was not a public forum and therefore could be controlled by the school. I can only imagine what a school newspaper would be like without regulation of the first amendment rights. Although the topics of divorce and teen pregnancy are not really offensive to me, they could have possibly disrupted the peace of the school, and that is for the principal to decide. The precedent that was established was that under the first amendment, school officials are able to sensor a school newspaper if rightful educational justification can be given, but this does not allow a school to sensor a paper written on opinion. No matter how much we want to exercise our freedom of speech amendment as young adults, a school must contain some form of control over what is said in order to provide a sound learning environment; therefore, I completely agree with the majority decision of the supreme court in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case.
-Nancy Bobrysh
period 4
In the court case Vernonia School District 47J vs. Acton, the Supreme Court ruled that the Student Athlete Drug Policy is constitutional and not a violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments. I agree with the court ruling because drug testing in high schools seeks to locate the people who give themselves an unfair advantage among their peers in sports. However, some people argue that drug testing is a violation of privacy. But how can drug testing be a violation of privacy if athletes are already used to suiting up in locker rooms before practice and taking communal showers afterword? Furthermore, men are used to peeing in public restrooms and so peeing into a cup with some people watching is really not that different. Also, students have to undergo physical checkups in addition to vision, hearing and other examinations. A drug test is very similar to these inspections.
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fourteenth amendment protects citizenships rights. However, students have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the general public because when they are participating in school activities, the school is responsible for them. The drug tests are also effective in deterring drug use among students and this is beneficial because drug use among students has a more deleterious affect that drug use among adults. I have never had to experience the process of drug testing but I can understand that it can be embarrassing to pee in a cup in front of people. However, when students decide to participate in sports, they are subjecting themselves to additional regulation and medical screenings. The precedent set in this case is that schools can give random drug testing to athletes and they would not be violating the constitution in doing so. I personally do not feel that the Student Athlete Drug Policy is an invasion of privacy and so I believe that the majority decision in this case was correctly decided.
-Hima Mamillapalli
Period 4
In the 1988 Supreme Court case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the judges made a 5-4 decision in favor of the principal of Hazelwood School. The Supreme Court felt that the deletion of the two articles from the school newspaper, The Spectrum, did not violate the student's first amendment rights to free press. I agree with this decision. From a personal standpoint, what one student said about her parent's divorce and the lack of time that her father spent with the family doesn't offend me, but I can understand that the father wouldn't have a chance to create a defending argument, if there was one. Regarding the pregnancy issue, I believe that the authors of the the article were right in using pseudonyms to protect the students involved. School newspapers definitely don't have the same free press rights as a regular town newspaper, so it is understandable when the Supreme Court ruled that the Spectrum was not a public forum and therefore could be ruled by the administration of Hazelwood. Under the first amendment, school administrators are allowed to regulate the majority, if not all, of school activities. The articles about divorce and pregnancy didn't really offend me, but realizing that there are younger students enrolled in the school, the decision to exclude those from the final edition of the Spectrum was a good choice. Even though the students of the newspaper committee appealed the original decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Court, the final decision rested on the judges of the Supreme Court, who agreed with the first decision: that schools have the right to limit the amount of free press given to students. With that in mind, there is a possibility that those two articles may have affected some of the students in a negative way. This being said, I agree with the decision made in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case.
-Jen Thompson
Period 4
In the court case New Jersey v. T.L.O., I do not believe that the majority opinion was correct. The case involved a 14 year old girl caught smoking in the bathrooms of her school, she was then taken to a private office by her principal and her bag was searched. During the search, rolling papers and marijuana were found in the bag, leading to 1 year of probation. T.L.O. sewed, however, claiming that her 4 and 14th Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation, using a less strict standard of “reasonableness” to say the search was not unconstitutional. I do think that the search was a violation of her right to privacy, and search and seizure. The principals only reason for looking into the girls bag was for cigarettes, which were found right on top almost immediately. The principal, however, kept searching the girls bag even after the cigarettes were found, therefore violating her privacy. I do not think that the principal had probable cause to keep searching the girls bag, just because she had cigarettes did not mean she would have drugs. Therefore in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., I disagree with the courts final decision.
- Caitlyn DeClement, period 5
In the case of Goss V.S. Lopez the Supreme Court sided with the students ruling that due process and the 14th amendment was violated because the students did not get a herring before they got suspended. The principle had to have had a hearing to discuss to the student why they were getting suspended and for the student to discuss what happened but the principle just suspended them violating their 14th amendments. It is not the question weather I agree that the students should have got suspended it is the fact that they all should have had hearings before they were suspended. Therefore I have to agree with the Supreme Court in ruling that their due process was violated. Everyone one deserves the right to know what they are getting in trouble for. In real life you don’t just get arrested and go to jail you have a court date which is a hearing. Even though you are in school you still have to follow the law and that is what the principle did not do, he/she did not give them a hearing. Even though in school your rights are limited you still have ones that can not be limited and that is something that the principle should have known. This case was interesting because unlike a lot of cases that we heard in class the students won this case. No matter how bad the misconduct that the student committed they still have their rights and that is why I have to agree with the Supreme Court.
In the court case Goss vs. Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that the students 14th amendment rights to due process where violated. Ohio says that the principal can suspend a student for misconduct for up to ten days, but first their parents have to be notified with in one day and be told the reasons for the suspension. They can appeal the decision to the board of education and can be reinstated to school. The students never where told that this could be done and therefore they believed that their due process rights where violated. I my self believe that the court made the right decision in ruling with the students because Ohio law clearly states that the students are entitled to a hearing with in a reasonable amount of time. The students where not told this therefore their due process rights where violated.
The Supreme Court case that I read about was Vernonia School District v. Acton. The Supreme Court ruled that the Vernonia School District had the right to drug test student athletes. They said that it was not in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments which protect your right to privacy, like Acton had claimed. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision in this case.
If an athlete is taking drugs it gives them an unfair advantage over other players. It is not fair to all of the players who work hard at a sport and are good without taking drugs. Schools just want to make sporting events fair, and to do that they need to make sure that everyone has an even playing field.
Also, certain drugs make players more vulnerable to injuries. While you are at school the school is responsible for your well being. If you get injured at school, or while participating in a school event then it is their fault. The school just wants to make sure that you are safe and do not get injured, which is more likely to happen if you are taking drugs.
Acton argued that drug testing violated his right to privacy, but I agree with the Supreme Court that it did not violate that right. Athletes are used to sharing locker rooms and changing in front of their teammates and friends. Also, when they shower they use on communal shower, which is not very private. Drug testing is just as open as showering in a locker room, or changing in a locker room. There was no privacy violated, because if he can share a locker room, he can get tested for drugs.
Overall I believe that the school was just trying to protect their student athletes and did not violate any rights by asking for them to submit to a drug test, which is also what the supreme court decided.
Sean O’Halloran
Period 4
Bethel vs. Fraser
When it comes to the Supreme Court Case of Bethel vs. Fraser, I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court justices made the correct decision. In a split decision of seven votes to two votes, the Supreme Courts justices decided that the school district of Bethel had the right to punish Fraser for his actions. Matthew N. Fraser made a very inappropriate and vulgar speech for a student government nomination ceremony in school. This rude speech was heard by most students, including freshman, and some teachers found Fraser’s remarks very offensive. As a result of his speech, Matthew Fraser was suspended from school for three days. This punishment upset Fraser and his family, in return Mr. Fraser took the suspension to court for violation of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. Like most of the Supreme Court Justices, I agree that Bethel school district had the right to punish Matthew Fraser, however I think that the three day suspension was a harsh punishment. The speech made by Fraser was very rude and inappropriate for school, because of this the school should have the right to discipline him. Freedom of speech is limited for students while in school. However as a high school student myself, I could imagine that most of the students at Bethel High School found the speech funny and a joking matter, rather than offensive. The Supreme Court Justices made the correct decision in allowing the Bethel school district to punish Matthew Fraser for the vulgar speech that he made in the school environment.
In the case of Veronia School District 47J vs. Acton, school officials demanded that student athletes must adhere to a drug test before they were allowed to play any sport. One student and their parents brought this case to the District Court because they believed that it was a violation of their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fourteenth amendment is due process, which is a protection of a person’s legal rights. The District Court denied claims by the student and parents; however, they were not pleased with this verdict. They then brought the case to the Court of Appeals, who reversed the claim and said that it was a violation of both Federal and State Constitutions. Finally, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, and they sided with the school just like the District Court.
I certainly agree with the Supreme Court ruling for a few reasons. First of all, everyone must go through a physical before they can play a sport and go to school for that matter. During most physicals, people are asked to give urine samples, which is all school officials wanted as their drug test. If students know that they did not do drugs, they should not deny getting a urine sample because that makes it seem like they are trying to hide something. Also, football team members get changed and shower in front of everyone after a big game, and that is not considered a violation of privacy. If anything, getting a urine sample is less of a violation of privacy, so there is no reason why it should not be allowed. Finally, taking drugs gives that specific athlete an unfair advantage. To make sure that everyone is working as hard as they can during a sporting event without drugs, school officials should have the right to ensure everyone is clean.
In conclusion, I believe that the Supreme Court ruling was absolutely the right choice. Two out of the three courts sided the same, so that is majority. To guarantee that everyone on the team has the same chance as one another, drugs tests should definitely be allowed. I do not believe that this would violate any rights of students.
Arianna Palumbo
Period 6
In the case of T.L.O the Supreme Court ruled that the school did not violate T.L.O. rights and violate her 4th and 14th amendment. I feel that the ruling of this case is far and didn’t violate her rights. With the situation that she had it was right for them to continue looking after they found the cigarettes because she could have had more. The schools intent was not to see what else she had in the bag but were just looking fore more of the same thing which I believe there is no problem with if you have a felling that there could be more. With the principle finding the marijuana was not the cause of that but was just coincidental. With T.L.O. being a minor and at school I agree with the Supreme Court because you do not have the same rights and an adult. At school they also have a zero tolerance for smoking which and could search through her bag because she was already caught and now they want to stop the problem because it is now not a safe environment for students to be in. That is why I believe the Supreme Court ruling in this case is just and shouldn’t be changed.
In the court case Vernonia v. Acton the majority opinion ruled in favor of the Student Athlete Drug Policy. I agree with this ruling in favor of the school for several reasons. Acton claims that the school’s refusal of allowing him to participate in a sport without a drug test is a violation to both the fourth and fourteenth amendment. He declares that drug tests are an invasion of privacy. The Fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that requiring a drug test to be on a sports team cannot be considered as an unreasonable search. Not only is a drug test encouraging students to stay away from drugs, which is in their best interest, but it is also providing the school and sports instructors with information that they have the right to know about. This is especially true because we know that drugs negatively impact a person’s health, ability to perform a sport, and has been proven to make them more prone to accidents. The school does not want to be responsible for students who have put themselves at a higher risk of getting hurt by taking drugs. Drug tests are just as important and reasonable as the requirement of sports physicals. A coach or instructor needs to be aware of its athlete’s health and conditions. Sports are also an extra, voluntary activity making higher requirements acceptable. If a student really has an issue with getting a drug test there is a simple solution: don’t join the team. Some people argue that drug tests are a real invasion to privacy. This may be true, but it is no more of an invasion than most athletes are used to. Requiring a drug test in order to participate on a sports team is equitable for schools to do.
-Liora Mor
period 4
Matt Sweeney
Period 6
Bethel vs. Frazier
In the Supreme Court case of Bethel vs. Frazier, justices were split. But in the end, the majority ruled with the school. The court decided that school can limit free speech deemed disruptive or inappropriate. They also made the argument saying that school is not a public forum (open space, street, newspaper). Therefore, a student has limited free speech in a school.
I do not agree with this verdict. Frazier’s speech was not inappropriate. Frazier didn’t even swear at all or use any other offensive words. Students hear things ten times worse when they are walking from class to class in school than they heard in Frazier’s speech. His speech could have been interpreted differently. Also, he had his teachers look over his speech and they never said, “You can’t say this”. If they never told him that he couldn’t say the speech, then they never should have suspended him for 2 days. I agree with Frazier when he argued that the school violated the 1st amendment of free speech, and by removing him from the graduation speaker’s list, which violated the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. I also agree with one of the Supreme Court justices when they made a comparison to the film, “Gone With the Wind”. That movie was almost not released in 1939 because of the line that said, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”. Back then, that was considered inappropriate, but now all it would do is probably give it a PG rating instead of a G rating. A Supreme Court Justices’ age can make a difference in their decision as well. Different people are offended by different things. Frazier gave his speech in front of 14 to 18 year olds. They are going to think differently of the speech than the Justices who are from a different, stricter period of time. In the Supreme Court case of Bethel vs. Frazier, I believe that the court made the wrong decision.
In the Supreme Court case New Jersey vs. T.L.O, T.L.O sued on the basis that her fourth and fourteenth amendment rights had been violated. At the time of the case, T.L.O was a fourteen year old girl who was caught smoking in the girl’s bathroom of her New Jersey High school. A principal at the school questioned T.L.O and then continued with a search of her purse. The search revealed a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia.
As a result, T.L.O was sentenced to one year probation by the Juvenile Court of New Jersey. T.L.O decided to appeal the ruling and the Appellate Division of New Jersey found that her 4th amendment right was not violated. (The fourth amendment deals with search and seizure.) Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey court’s ruling, holding that searches by school officials are constitutional without a warrant as long as they are “reasonable”. T.L.O was found guilty by a 5 to 4 decision in favor of the state of New Jersey.
I feel that this Supreme Court case was correctly decided, and that T.L.O’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights were not violated. Her rights were not violated because the school and the administration had every right to search her purse to look for the cigarettes after she was caught smoking. Even though the cigarettes were found almost immediately after the search began, I feel that the administration had the right to continue the search because they had “reasonable doubt” that there could have been other items within the purse that would violate school rules. Therefore, the administartion had the right to continue the search. After reviewing all of the details the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 against T.L.O and I agree with their ruling.
~Kathleen DeVylder
Per. 4
In the case of Goss vs. Lopez the students which were suspended from school should have been. The problem does not concern the students actually being suspended, but rather the matter in which their suspension occurred. The students rights to Due Process in the 14th amendment were obviously violated. The students were given a suspension with no trial, warning, or fair hearing. The students, after being suspended protested, not their suspension but their rights to Due Process. The supreme court ruled that the students did indeed lose their rights to the 14th amendment from their suspension. I agree with the decision that the supreme court made in giving the students at least a hearing for their suspension. It is the students and parents rights to hear why their students were suspended, and what it was they did wrong. Even though the state of Ohio says that a student can have up to 10 days OSS for misconduct, it is still the students right to have a chance to fight their suspension through fair hearing. Although it may be true that after the hearing the students will still be suspended, it is only fair to the students and their parents that they receive their 14th amendment to Due Process.
-Joe Ortowski
I believe that in the case T.L.O. versus New Jersey, the court decided correctly. T.L.O. was accused of smoking cigarettes and so the principal looked through her bag; once she found the cigarettes she continued searching through the bag and found rolling papers, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. T.L.O. was then sentenced to a year of probation. T.L.O. sued the school because she felt like her rights protected by the 4th and 14th amendments were violated. I believe that once the principal had found the cigarettes, there was not a legitimate reason to continue searching through her bag except for looking for more cigarettes. Because the principal had reasonable belief that T.L.O. could have had more cigarettes, the search was justified. At Cheshire High School, if there is reasonable belief that a student has drugs, their locker and belongings can be searched. Our rights as students in school are different than in the outside world. The court decided correctly that T.L.O. deserved probation because of the principal’s reasonable belief that there could be more items that violated school rules in her bag.
In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O the majority opinions' of the Supreme Court Justices were correct. The girl (T.L.O) said that her 4th amendment and 14th amendments were violated by the principal when the principal searched through her bag. Had the principal been a police officer and T.L.O been outside school grounds, she would have been correct. This case went through all four court circuits and all four had the same majority opinion. The majority said that the principal of the school did not violate the 4th and 14th amendment. The Supreme Court finally said that in the case of search and seizure on school grounds a school official only have to have a reasonable cause rather than a probable cause to search through a student's belongings. The decision made by the Supreme Court was correct because when a teacher conducts a search it is in the preservation of school safety and the students' right to an equal education. Thus a search on school grounds can be initiated by just a "reasonable" cause even if that cause is just curiosity.
In the case of Vernonia School District vs. Acton, the majority opinion in this Supreme Court case was correctly decided. The student Acton and his family argued that his rights had been violated when being asked to submit a urine sample in order to join the school’s football team. Acton made it clear in his case that the fourth amendment (violation of privacy) and fourteenth amendment (due process) were ignored by his school district. This case was first taken to the district court, where this court had denied the claims. The victim not satisfied with this outcome, took this case to the court of appeals. The court of the appeals and the Supreme Court sided with the Vernonia School District, stating that Acton has no problem changing or getting undressed in front of his teammates on the football team, therefore a urine sample is not a violation of his or any students privacy. Secondly, the Supreme Court explained that medical professionals would be witnessing the urine sample; so again, it would not be an invasion of privacy. Acton, however, does have a right to due process which the Supreme Court stated in their closing statements.
Elizabeth Pettinicchi
Period 6
Bethel v. Fraser
I do feel that in the case Bethel v. Fraser the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case was correctly decided. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, wrote and gave a speech about a fellow student running for Vice President. The speech, Fraser said, was in favor of the student and he hoped the student body would vote the classmate as Vice President. Teachers and some students alleged the speech was sexually graphic, with explicit sexual metaphors, and elaborate in an inappropriate way. Fraser made sexual comments such as “I know a man who is firm -- he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm -- but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.” Even though the speech contained no vulgarities it was still extremely inappropriate.
Fraser’s punishment was a three day suspension and removal of his name from the list of graduation speakers. His parents appealed the case saying there was no harm done and the child’s right (the first amendment) was violated. I do not agree with this for not only was it extremely rude and inappropriate it certainly did not set a good example for the other student body. Fraser’s behavior was disruptive to the educational process; he made a joke of the mock government election, and showed distaste for a school community. Fraser was at a school event under the authority of school administration and speaking to his fellow peers. Certain regulations need to be put on students when in a school atmosphere. This situation might have been different if he was at an event held by students and the event had no school involvement. I do not feel he is strongly protected by the first amendment of freedom of speech in this situation for he is in a school held event. I agree with the Supreme Court that schools should have the right to limit speech if it’s disruptive or inappropriate. Ones rights are different in school then out of school. I would not feel comfortable if students were giving sexual speeches about other students, it would almost make me feel embarrassed that my school would even allow such things to happen. Schools must have authority to help young people and prepare them for life and what is and isn’t appropriate for the “real world”. There is no way anyone can say that speech was appropriate let alone appropriate for an election. I do strongly agree with the final decision the court made on Fraser’s punishment for his sexual innuendos in his speech.
In the case of T.L.O. vs. New Jersey, I feel that the majority opinion was correctly decided. When T.L.O. was caught in the bathroom smoking and brought down to the principal’s office, the principal searched through her bag, and found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, a wad of bills, and what appeared to be a list of the students who owed her money. After being sentenced to one year probation, she sued the school, claiming that her fourth and fourteenth amendments had been violated. The appeal went to each of the four court divisions, each with the same majority opinion that T.L.O,’s fourth and fourteenth amendments had not been violated by the school. The U.S. Supreme Court deemed the principal’s unwarranted search as “reasonable”, because they had already found the cigarettes. I feel that the school’s search was completely reasonable, and I agree with the decisions of each of the four courts. I think that T.L.O. thought especially that her fourth amendment rights were being violated because the principal began searching her bag even after he had found what he had been looking for, but what she didn’t understand was that because she was on school grounds, it was acceptable for the principal to search her bag because he had reason to believe that she could have more cigarettes in her bag.
In the case of Goss Vs. Lopez the Supreme court ruled in favor of the students. The court stated that the students 14th amendment right had been violated. I agree with the Supreme court in that the students 14th amendment right was iin fact violated. The principal should have held a hearing to present the students their charges and hand down their sentences. The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/). This was cleary violated when the principal did not hold a hearing of any kind.
Connor Fitzgerald
period 4
The case of New Jersey v. T.LO had been a case that was argued on March 28, 1984 about a fourteen year old girl that got caught smoking in a school bathroom. When she had been searched, marijuana and other drugs were found in her purse by the principal. T.L.O argued that the search violated the 4th and 14th amendment. This case was argued, reargued, and finally decided upon on January 1, 1985 that the search was not a violation since had violated school rules. I disagree with the court’s decision due to the fact that she was being searched for cigarettes, not other drugs. Once the school had found what they were looking for the search should have been stopped. There had been no compelling circumstance to continue the search. The school had invaded her privacy by continuing a search that had already been completed.
Kirsten Evans
Period 5.
Student Rights
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”(1) This amendment was questioned in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeir.
In 1988 Hazelwood high school newspaper was about to publish their final paper of the year when a problem occurred. The principle of the school always reads over the paper before it is sent to print, and in its final issue he noticed a problem. There were two articles that he felt should be taken out of the paper. One article of the paper was on the subject of teen pregnancy, containing interviews with students, and another about teens with divorced parents. He felt the anonymity of the students and their parents was not enough to protect them. He also felt that articles content was inappropriate for the younger students to read. The principle printed the paper without the two pages that contained articles the articles he did not approve of.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court and in a 5-3 decision the court sided in favor of the principle stating he did not violate the students rights of the first amendment. This was due to the fact that the schools newspaper was under the guidelines the school had set, and the school has the right to set standards of what the students can and can not say.
In my opinion, the principle had the complete right to take the articles he did not approve of out of the newspaper. The rights a student has inside and outside of a school are completely different. Principles and other staff members are not sent just to educate students but to protect them as well, to act as parents while you are at school. There is an immense maturity difference between a high school senior and a high school freshman, which the principle understood. He wanted to protect his students, and because there was not time to fix the articles they did not need to be included. Although the constitution states we have freedom of press, it only should be applied to people in the public. A school is a private institution set up with rules and regulations, which the students should follow. I agree with the courts decision in favor of the principle.
(1) http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html
-Molly Stern
period 4
In the Supreme Court Case of Vernonia School District v. Acton, Acton, a student athlete, claimed that his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy were being violated by Vernonia School's required drug testing for athletes. The Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of Vernonia, determining that schools are permitted to require athletes to submit to drug tests. I agree with the majority ruling of this case. No high school sport is mandated for students. If one does not agree with any of the requirements of a certain activity, they do not have to participate. Additionally, the process used for drug testing is not any more invasive than the physicals required for sports, or the group showers that are generally taken after football practice. If Acton thought his privacy would be violated by the drug test, then surely he should have felt that his privacy was violated by these other things, and he could have simply refrained form joining the football team in the first place.
In the Supreme Court case of T.L.O. vs. New Jersey, I do agree with the courts on their decision. Their decision agreed with the school that Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion to search T.L.O.’s purse and continued with due process the entire way through. I agree with the court because T.L.O. was claiming that the school had violated her 4th and 14th amendment rights. These are the right of Search and Seizure and the right of Due Process. I agree with the courts that the Search and seizure right was not violated because in school, the principle only needed to have reasonable suspicion to search T.L.O.’s purse. Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. was carrying cigarettes because she had been caught by a teacher smoking in the bathroom. I also agree that T.L.O.’s right to Due Process was not violated because the principle only continued to search through her purse after finding more drug Paraphernalia, such as rolling paper which was closely related with marijuana use at this particular high school.
-Tom Stanley
Period 4
Concerning the Hazelwood vs. Kulmeir situation, I feel that the court ruled justly. The students may have put time and effort into the submitted articles, but the topics were obviously inappropriate for school newspapers. The school board ultimately has a write to ban students from publishing articles that they feel would be inappropriate for school, and thus does not interfere with there 1st amendment rights. Every individual has a right to exercise their freedom of speech, but they must take into consideration what the situation is. And clearly the school has a right to edit anything a student rights in the school newspaper if they have a ligitimate reason for thinking that it would be offensive to other students.
Shannon McCoy
Period 6
In the case Bethel vs. Fraser I feel that the Supreme Court ruling was correct in one sense. Matthew Fraser made a speech in front of most of his school full of young, innocent minds and teachers, some in their later years. These people do not hear such disgust. His speech was inappropriate and unnecessary. He could have got the same point without the use of such language. He is mature enough to know that using such terminology is not school appropriate. So on that point I feel that that is not a violation of the first amendment, for he should know better. But as far as due process goes, I think that they took some steps that were not entirely correct. The fact that they supsended him is not right. He his entitled to an education and to take that away is against his rights. I'm sure there is another punishment/way of dealing with this situation that is suitable, and does not take away his education.
In the court case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey in a 6-3 decision. I agree with the majority opinion that the search was reasonable and therefore did not violate any of T.L.O.’s rights. She had been accused of smoking, but denied it so whether or not she had cigarettes in her bag was a huge factor in knowing if she was telling the truth. When the vice principal was looking for those cigarettes, he found more and more drug related things. So in theory, the reasonable search for the cigarettes led to the findings of the other stuff. On top of all that, people need to remember that this was done in a school environment. The school can practically do whatever it has to in order to make the school a safe place where kids can learn the best. School is a privilege even though many kids do not look at it that way, and it’s the school’s job to make sure kids do not abuse that privilege. If any thing, T.L.O. got off easy. I would expect the punishment for this type of situation to be worse.
In the case of Goss vs. Lopez students were suspended without a hearing. They felt that their 14th Amendment and rights to Due process were violated. Taking it to Supreme Court, the Supreme court agreed with the students feeling their rights to due process and 14th Amendment rights were violated. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. They have a right to a fair trial. Even though Ohio law didn't require it, the Constitution says everybody has a right to a fair trial, which they were not given. No matter if you are being suspended or if you are being arrested for murder, the Constitution says you have a right to a fair trial. Because the students did not get the right to a fair trail, i agree with the Supreme court's decision in saying the students rights to due process and 14th Amendment rights were violated.
In the case of Bethel v. Fraser I believe when the supreme court ruled that the school was correct. I believe the student was correct with his opinion of his words used to describe his classmate not being inappropriate. H He gave a speech nominating one of his classmates for vice president. Some teachers and students were apalled at what they heard come from this students mouth. However, the student did show the speech to several different teachers at the school that never said you cant say that. So he was suspended for 2 days and removing from the graduation speakers list, when teachers, who should know all school regulations never the told the student he couldnt say any part of the speech what so ever. Fraser argued the school violated the first amendment of free speech and the 14th amendment clause of Due Process. The supreme court ruled the school was correct and said the school could can limit free speech that is considered disruptive to the learning environment. They also said school is not a public forum that people could use their rights to its full extent. As a student, there are less rights inside of school then outside. One supreme court justice argued people in different generations were brought up to different speculations of what words were profanity. I disagree with the supreme courts rule in the Bethel v. Fraser case because the faculty of the school did not tell the student that the speech was disruptive. The school should not have suspended Fraser and just set an example and have speeches reviewed by the principal of the school, which decided the suspension for the student. I believe the case was wrongly decided and the student should not have been suspended.
Paul Constantino
Period 4
Bethel v. Fraser
In this case, the courts ruled against Fraser. I somewhat agree with their actions but I also disagree. This student made a few sexual metaphores in a school speach that were intended to be funny and actually make sense. He didn't mean to harm or insult anybody. I don't feel that he should have been suspended for a lewd speech because everybody has a right to an education. Essentially he didn't do anything wrong.
Although I do agree with him being punished I don't feel that they should have came up with something on the spot. I agree he should have been punished because there were a lot of young children who didn't really understand the whole situation and the content of his speech so they misunderstood the whole point. The entire fact that Frasier would include such immature content for a school speech that he knew the entire school would hear deserves a punishment, but they shouldn't suspend him and take away his education. I can understand some detentions afterschool or saturday or something like that but taking away his education is one step to far.
Kris Soeters
Period 6
I feel that the majority opinion in my supreme court case, Veronia Vs. Acton, was correctly decided.
Student athletes attending veronia high school were required to take drug testing in order to be on a team at their school, due to the suspician of them as leaders in drugs at the school, and the risk of sports related injury. The case had to do with the 4th and 14th amendments, which included due process and unreasonable searches. Due to the majority opinion at the supreme court, the case was found constitutional. I agree that the school does have rights to do this because in most cases it wouldnt be a case of violating privacy, and the school does have the right to protect students from drugs and unfair advantages. When a student joins a sports team he is agreeing to stay drug free therefore the school doews have the right to put them through these tests. In my experiences as a student athlete, i wouldnt find such a test a violation of my privacy. So pretty much if someone is too scared to take a drug test in the first place, they shouldnt be playing sports.
In the case “T.L.O. vs. New Jersey”, I believe that the Supreme Court’s final ruling was correct. In the case, T.L.O. was caught smoking in her high school girl’s bathroom by a teacher. The teacher brought her and the girl she was smoking with to the principal’s office. The vice principal spoke to T.L.O. and she denied smoking in the bathroom. The vice principal, Mr. Choplick, then demanded to search her purse. He immediately found a pack of cigarettes. As he grabbed the cigarettes out of the purse, he spotted marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. She was sentenced to one year of probation by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County. She believed that she was violated by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizure; the Fourteenth Amendment basically states that the government must respect all of a person’s legal rights. After appealing in the New Jersey Supreme Court and later the U.S. Supreme Court, the results were the same. It was decided that the 4th and 14th Amendment were not violated, because there was a reasonable cause for Mr. Choplick to check the purse. Dissenting opinions included that Mr. Choplick had no reasonable suspicion that the purse would contain cigarettes. T.L.O.’s argument included that it was not illegal for a student to have cigarettes on them, leaving Mr. Choplick not allowed to legally take the cigarettes from her possession. This whole situation could have easily been avoided if T.L.O. had not brought the cigarettes into school. School is for learning; not for smoking cigarettes, and certainly not for drug dealing. One year of probation isn’t so bad if you look at the big picture of how bad it could’ve been. All in all, I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision that the school had a reasonable cause for searching the purse.
Gavin Mestel
Period 6
Katie Jarjura
9.8.08
Civics
The majority opinion of the Court concluded in the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier that the school did not violate the first amendment. Hazelwood high school had a journalism class that published its own newspaper. This year’s newspaper included interviews with anonymous pregnant girls that shared their opinion on birth control and sexual activity. There was also a divorce story that talked about a girl’s father that was never around. When principal Reynolds read the final copy he disapproved of the two stories. He felt that the content of the pregnant girls article could help to identify them and that the story was overall inappropriate for the younger classmen. Reynolds also did not like the divorce article because it did not have the father’s opinion and that he should have had a chance to respond. Since there was no time to edit the stories, he deleted the last two pages of the newspaper. He did not just delete the two articles but two pages worth of other articles. The students were outraged and took the matter to court declaring their right to the first amendment was violated.
The Supreme Court decided that the first amendment, which gives the right to free speech, was not violated. The school had the right to sensor the students speech for legitimate reasons that supported educational purposes. In my opinion the Supreme Court was right. The school finances the newspaper and if there is a legitimate reason for the sensor of the students it’s allowed. The rights that are given to adults differ then with students because the government can’t censor what is said because of the first amendment. Since I am a student I can see eye-to-eye with the other students, they probably worked really hard and were excited to see not only the ending result but also the other students reactions. They were disappointed and upset they weren’t consulted first. I didn’t really feel that there was anything that inappropriate in the articles because I hear worst in the hallway everyday but it is the school newspaper and its run by the school so its their decision what’s in it.
Katie Jarjura
9.8.08
Civics
The majority opinion of the Court concluded in the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier that the school did not violate the first amendment. Hazelwood high school had a journalism class that published its own newspaper. This year’s newspaper included interviews with anonymous pregnant girls that shared their opinion on birth control and sexual activity. There was also a divorce story that talked about a girl’s father that was never around. When principal Reynolds read the final copy he disapproved of the two stories. He felt that the content of the pregnant girls article could help to identify them and that the story was overall inappropriate for the younger classmen. Reynolds also did not like the divorce article because it did not have the father’s opinion and that he should have had a chance to respond. Since there was no time to edit the stories, he deleted the last two pages of the newspaper. He did not just delete the two articles but two pages worth of other articles. The students were outraged and took the matter to court declaring their right to the first amendment was violated.
The Supreme Court decided that the first amendment, which gives the right to free speech, was not violated. The school had the right to sensor the students speech for legitimate reasons that supported educational purposes. In my opinion the Supreme Court was right. The school finances the newspaper and if there is a legitimate reason for the sensor of the students it’s allowed. The rights that are given to adults differ then with students because the government can’t censor what is said because of the first amendment. Since I am a student I can see eye-to-eye with the other students, they probably worked really hard and were excited to see not only the ending result but also the other students reactions. They were disappointed and upset they weren’t consulted first. I didn’t really feel that there was anything that inappropriate in the articles because I hear worst in the hallway everyday but it is the school newspaper and its run by the school so its their decision what’s in it.
period 4
Test
Zanib Iqbal
Per. 2
In the Supreme Court case of Fraser vs. Bethel I believe that the justice made the correct decision, which was siding with Fraser. The justices agreed on the fact that the school rules were very vague and did not clearly state what the students were allowed to say or could not say. Also, the jury agreed that because of the First Amendment the “students do not shed their freedom rights when they enter the school gate.” But, at the same time since Fraser was in school he does not have full rights to the First Amendment.
In my opinion, since 3 of the teachers read the speech before hand, they should have told Fraser to not give that speech. None of the teachers told him of the consequences that Fraser would have to face afterwards. If the First Amendment gives students the right of speech, then Fraser should not have been suspended for three days. I agree that most of the remarks in Fraser’s speech were very offensive and not school appropriate. But, at the same time the teachers did not stop him from giving that speech. I believe that in school students do have very limited rights to the First Amendment because they are in a public place. As minors most of those rights are not given to us.
If that speech was made in our high school I think that not a lot of students would take it seriously. They will just see it as a joke and not really care about it. But, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t offensive to the person who Fraser was talking about. First Amendment does give us freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that we should use it to show others in a bad way.
In the case of Goss vs. Lopez I felt that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision against the state of Ohio 5 votes to 4. The students felt that their 14th amendment rights were violated and I agree completely with what they had to say. The 14th amendment guarantees every citizen the right to Due Process in the event that they are arrested, or in this case suspended from school. These students did not receive a hearing or warning for their actions and thus their rights to the 14th amendment were not honored. While they may have done something wrong that prompted their suspensions the real issue that the Supreme Court was looking into was that they weren’t given a fair trial. They may have been found guilty if indeed this had happened but the problem was that they were never given a chance to fight their case. All schools, including Cheshire High, are required to follow these guidelines and this high school in Ohio was at fault for not adhering to the rules outlined by The Constitution. Therefore I feel that the Supreme Court was correct in its ruling against the school. This case could be used as a precedent for future cases involving the issue of Due Process and the 14th amendment.
Steve Howard
Period 5
In the case of Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton I believe the majority ruled correctly when they determined drug testing was legal in schools. The case was about whether or not schools had the right to drug test athletes; the issue was the 4th and 14th amendments. The first evidence the Supreme Court used to support their decision was that athletes were already being submitted to physicals and health screenings. The athletes already have to change in a communal locker-room and shower. Secondly, the court said that the tests did not violate the 4th amendment because the tests were done privately in front of doctors not in front of the team. Also, the supreme court referred back to N.J. v. T.L.O which deemed that students had very limited rights in school. Additionally, in Connecticut if one athlete on a team is connected to performance enhancing drugs the team forfeits their whole season so it is in the schools best interest to do drug tests to not only protect the students; but, also their teams.
Matthew Gorham
Period 5
in the case of Vernonia vs. Acton the court ruled that student athletic drug testing did not violate your 4th or 14th amendment rights and i find that it is true because the athletes already shower together so its not much different then getting tested.
I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s final decision in the case Bethel vs. Fraser. Fraser was a well-respected student among his teachers and peers. He had several teachers read his speech before he read it at the assembly and none told him that it was against the rules or that he absolutely should not read it. The school had extremely vague guidelines on what they deemed appropriate for school and what the consequences would be for crossing those boundaries. The assembly was not entirely mandatory- students had the option of reporting to study hall. One point heavily stressed by the court was that there were freshmen at the assembly, whose young minds might have been corrupted by Fraser’s speech. But I think that the court seriously overestimated the naiveté of an average fourteen year old. Fraser’s use of sexual innuendo in his speech was not much different, if not more mild, than how high school students talk to each other in the halls and in class everyday. When an excerpt of his speech was read to our class, the majority laughed and no one was offended. To claim that his speech was shocking and offensive to high school students would be quite a stretch, considering the popularity of jokes like “That’s what she said”. I agree with the court’s point that it is important for the school to maintain a learning environment, but after the speech no teachers or students complained of disorder in their classrooms that was out of the ordinary or in response to Fraser’s speech. It was unreasonable for the school to suspend him for three days and forbid him from being the graduation speaker, and the district court actually reversed Fraser’s punishment and reimbursed him for legal costs. The school should not have the right to control a student’s speech when it will be unlikely to offend other students or pose a threat to the learning environment.
-Christine Bannan, Period 2
Dave Ciarlelli
Period 2 Civics
Goss v. Lopez
In the Supreme Court Case Goss v. Lopez, 9 students were suspended for misconduct. They were not given a hearing, rather, they were not allowed to return to school for 10 days. These students felt that they had their 14th Amendment Rights (Due Process) taken away. The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-to-4 decision, that since the State of Ohio, by law, promises each of its citizens a right to education, they cannot revoke this right without first holding some form of a hearing for the students.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…without due process of law.” This means that no rights of an American citizen can be taken away without a fair trial of sorts. These students were not given a trial, and had no chance to defend their actions. If they were given a trial, perhaps evidence or witness(es) could attest to the students’ innocence. However, this was not the case. The State of Ohio stripped the students of their rights.
The State of Ohio gives their citizens a right to an education. The United States Constitution, however, does not state that all citizens have a right to a public education. Obviously, this is a matter of judgment, which is why it made it to the Supreme Court. Since it is not a law in the constitution, should the students in Ohio still been protected? Five of the nine justices agreed that the students couldn’t have their right to an education taken away. It is unconstitutional to promise something, only to take it away later.
I disagree with the final decision in the Fraser vs. Bethel case. Although Fraser's speech could be interpreted in different ways, he was never formally warned of the punishment he would receive. Not even the teachers who proof read his speech gave him fair warning. Since he knew of no definite punishment for giving his speech there is no way that any punishment is fair. However, if the circumstance was different and he was aware of the out come then suspension is understandable. The Principal had a problem with the speech being inappropriate for freshmen. But from a student's point of view there was nothing wrong with the speech to start with. It was entertaining and kept the attention of the audience. As for the freshmen, many of them may not even understand the innuendos Fraser spoke of. In that case, there is no problem. To conclude, the Supreme Court decision was unfiar to Fraser because of his unawareness to the consequences he would receive.
Chelsea Andreoli
Period 2 civics
In the case of Bethel vs. Frazier, I do believe that Frasier was treated unfairly. After he wrote his speech, he asked 3 of the teachers to look at it for him. Neither of them explained to him the consequences or told him the dangers of reading the speech. He really didn't know not to read his speech. I don't think he deserved the punishment he had received. I think the court should have thought this one over before they punished Frasier.
The case of Veronia School District v. Acton, the supreme court ruled in favor of the Veronia School District. This case involved the drug testing of athletes at Veronia. The school believed that the athletes were at the center of the drug scene at school, and that the use of drugs would increase the number of sports related injuries. This was brought to the attention of the supreme court when a student, Acton, claimed that this random urinalysis violates the search and seizure clause of the fourth ammendment
In my opinion, the supreme court was correct in ruling in favor of the Veronia School District. Athletes must undergo a physical before they are allowed to play a sport. It would be a simple task to add a urinalysis to this physical. Also, if an athlete is clean they have nothing to hide and there is no reason to refuse testing. Playing on a sports team is a privilege, not a right. You do not have to submit a urine sample, but you must if you want to play on the team. The supreme court was right in siding with the Veronia School District, and there is nothing constitutionally incorrect about the drug testing.
- Patrick Cavanaugh
In the case T.L.O vs. New Jersey, I felt that the Supreme Court’s decision was fairly decided. Even though at the time, the only way somebody could search through another person’s possessions was Plausible Cause, by the Principal finding the cigarettes was probable cause enough in my eyes to search for other paraphernalia. So truly, T.L.O did not have any right to question her own rights that were given by the Constitution. But even now, I feel that if there is reasonableness to a search, it is fair for schools, but schools only. Outside of school, even though I am still a minor, I feel that there should be Probable Cause as to why we should be searched. Following our Constitutional rights, if there is Probable Cause, we can be searched, but in school since what could be hidden could effect the learning environment, it’s ok for a student to be searched. This is why I feel the Supreme Court’s decision on T.L.O vs. New Jersey was fair and right.
The case that my group and I looked at was that of the Veronia School District vs. Acton in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. The case revolved around the issue of drug testing athletes based on the belief of the school system that most of the drug culture revolved around the athletes. Not only was the school worried about the safety of the players themselves but also the others they could hurt with their unfair advantage. Acton and his family, however, refused to take the urinalysis test and brought the case to court stating that the testing violates the search and seizure clause of the 4th Amendment.
I feel that the Supreme Court siding with the school district is the right decision. This is because it’s not really a big deal to urinate in a cup with a stranger in the room. If you have nothing to hide why not submit to a test. Also, if you’re going to play on a sports team you probably recognize the fact that cheating with illegal drugs is not fair. It makes the playing field uneven and thus causes a major problem along with the fact that someone could get seriously, and unfairly, injured.
In the case of Goss v. Lopez, the supreme courted ruled in favor of the students who were suspended from their school. They were immediately suspended from their school without being told any reasons or giving them a chance to explain themselves, or try to shoot for little less drastic consequence. Both the 6th and the 14th amendments deal with due process, and the right to a trial, so I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court made the correct decision. When committing a crime outside of school, you are read your rights and arrested. You are then brought to a judge and you have the right to defend yourself, or have someone defend you before your final consequence is given. If high school is supposed to prepare us for the real world, we should be treated more like adults than just a “Shame shame! time-out!” We should have the right to defend ourselves when accused of a crime, whether we’re guilty or not. When denied this right, it seems so primitive. This is how our government has worked for more than 200 years, yet in our own schools education system, students were denied the right to due process, and the right to a trial in which they can defend themselves. I’m very glad that the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the students should have the right to have a hearing.
My first impression of the case "Bethel v. Fraser" was that the Court ruled correctly in determining that the school had the right to discipline the student. The case synopsis described a sexually, inappropriate speech which had the potential to directly infect the minds of younger students.
However, upon reading the actual text of the speech, I do not think the student deserved as much discipline as was given. The references were inappropriate but not necessarily disruptive to the educational environment.
Nevertheless, this case set the benchmark for schools being able to censor students--our right to free speech is essentially suspended. As long as we are on school grounds, this makes sense. We should be subject to the school's (reasonable) discretion of what can negatively affect the school environment. What is deemed inappropriate in changing times and society is another story. However, bottom line, I do agree with the ruling that schools can reasonably limit our free speech for the good of our educational environment.
Chris Jones
09/09/2008
Period 2
Yes, I do feel that the majority opinion in our Supreme Court, court case was correctly decided. It was decided that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, when the students received a 10-day suspension for misconduct, without notice or a hearing. As a student, I know that if I were to ever be either wrongly or unfairly accused of misconduct or of anything else, I would definitely want both a notice and a hearing, as well. To accuse someone of something is one thing, but to hand down punishments without letting them speak first, just isn’t right. It’s their right. (Citations: http://law.jrank.org/pages/13279/Goss-v-Lopez.html).
The case of Bethel vs. Fraser went to the Supreme Court, where the majority ruled in favor of the Bethel School District. The case was a 7-2 decision, and I feel that the majority opinion in the case was the correct one. The case was about a student who gave a speech at a school election assembly. It was a crude speech with sexual innuendos. The student, Fraser, was suspended after giving this speech. He attempted to dispute his punishment by saying that his right to freedom of speech was violated, as well as his right to due process since he said he didn’t know that giving the speech would result in his suspension. The Supreme Court decided that it is up to the school board to determine what is inappropriate, and that the Bethel School District was correct and justified in their punishment. They distinguished the difference between a student’s rights in school and rights outside of school. In school, a student is allowed freedom of speech and First Amendment rights, but not in cases where it will disrupt schooling, undermine the school’s educational goals or be highly offensive or threatening to others. I agree with their decision. People should have the right to free speech in school but not if it will intervene with the educational process or be extremely offensive. I know that as a student I would find it very difficult to learn if people started acting in a way that disrupted classes. However, outside of school, adults can act differently. Protests or speeches can be more aggressive, especially if it is in order to make a political point or statement.
Fraser also said that his right to due process was violated by not being warned that his speech would cause him to be suspended for three days. The Supreme Court decided his 14th Amendment rights were not violated, since the school has the right to examine inappropriate behavior as it happens and give a suitable punishment. As a student, I agree with the majority’s opinion, since the school board can’t possibly predict all events and prohibit them in the school rules. The schools should have the power to punish someone who is acting in a way that is disruptive or unacceptable for school, whatever that might be, in order to keep the school running smoothly.
Karen Rosenblatt, Period 5
Post a Comment